Indeks – słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“. Opracował Czesław Kudzinowski. Tom I (A–N). VI+543 p. Tom II (O–Ž), 527 p. Poznań, 1977

In the districts (Zarasai, Ignalina, Švenčionys, etc.), where sizeable numbers of Russians and people of other nationalities have long lived, two trends are apparent: 1) the formation of socially active Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism and 2) relatively little social demand for active Russian–Lithuanian bilingualism. These trends arise because, in districts mixed in national composition, Russian functions widely as a means of communication among nationalities. Russians who have lived in the republic for a longer time and need Lithuanian in their work and activities learn the language. Russian-speaking residents of rural areas have a particular need for Lithuanian. Among residents of Russian nationality in the republic, knowledge of Lithuanian is, in general, inversely proportional to the density of the Russian population. In districts where the percentage of Russian residents is high, knowledge of Lithuanian is low. For example, according to the 1970 census, Russians make up 20.3% of the population of Zarasai district, but only 41.1% know Lithuanian. By contrast, in Šiauliai district, where people of Russian nationality make up only 3.1% of the population, 71% of them speak Lithuanian. A certain pattern is also evident in how bilinguals identify their native language. If only one language is used in a family, informants of all nationalities (Lithuanians, Russians, Poles, etc.) regard the language of their nationality as their native language; among informants from mixed families, however, their native language often does not coincide with the language of their nationality. V. Michalčenko rightly distinguishes knowledge of a second language from its use in various spheres of life. The younger and middle-aged generations of the republic’s population studied Russian at school, so it may be assumed that most Lithuanians know Russian to some degree. But its use is an entirely different matter. Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism is socially active only under certain ethnic conditions (a high percentage of Russian and other nationalities among the population). Russian is used here as a means of communication among people of various nationalities; in addition, people read specialized literature in Russian, and the language is used in radio, television, and the press. Socially active Lithuanian–Russian bilingualism is characteristic of the republic’s industrial centers and some districts (Šalčininkai, Vilnius, Švenčionys, etc.). The rest of the republic’s population has a poorer command of Russian; consequently, Russian is used less actively here. School learning may not be reinforced through live communication, so in such cases bilingualism can be discussed only with considerable qualification. Simas Karaliūnas Indeks – słownik do „Daukšos Postilė“. Opracował Czesław Kudzinowski. Tom I (A – N), VI + 543 p. Tom II (O – Ž), 527 p. Poznań, 1977. Mikalojus Daukša’s 1599 Postil is one of the most significant monuments of early Lithuanian writing. Because of its grammatical correctness, rich vocabulary, and especially its marking of stress placement, linguists make extensive use of the data in this book, not only in Lithuanian studies but also in Indo-European studies more generally. The Polish linguist Czesław Kudzinowski has now made these data more readily accessible to scholars: he has published a substantial, two-volume (no less than 1,076 pages!) index-dictionary listing all the words and forms in Daukša’s Postil. Professor C. Kudzinowski of the University of Poznań is a well-known Polish Balticist. He graduated from Vilnius University in 1935, where he studied comparative Indo-European linguistics. From 1935 to 1937 he specialized in Finno-Ugric linguistics in Helsinki, and from 1937 to 1939 in Budapest, where he defended his doctoral dissertation in philology (“The Finnish Sound System”). While living and studying in Vilnius, he learned Lithuanian and became involved in research on various problems in Baltic linguistics. In 1958, together with other Polish linguists, he published the text of the New Testament on the basis of the manuscript of S. Chilinskas’s Bible translation held at the British Museum in London. He has prepared for publication volume 53 of the writings of the Polish ethnographer and folklorist O. Kolberg. 188 (“Litwa,” 1966), devoted to Lithuanian studies. He published articles on borrowings from Slavic languages in Lithuanian, on Balticisms in his native Polish dialect (he was born in 1908 in Wodzilówka, Białystok Voivodeship), and wrote on other questions of Baltic and Lithuanian studies. Č. Kudzinovskis has considerable experience compiling indexes and dictionaries. He is, in general, a pioneer of this kind of work in Lithuanian studies. In 1964, an index to S. Chilinskio’s “New Testament,” compiled by him, appeared1, and received a positive assessment in our linguistic press2. The index under review is an incomparably larger work (about six times larger), and differs from the earlier one also in that it gives the meanings of the words included in the index. The author of the index became interested in Daukša’s postil in 1947, when the 350th anniversary of J. Vujeko was commemorated in Poland. At Prof. J. Otrembskis’s suggestion, Č. Kudzinovskis had planned to publish a new scholarly edition of the Polish 1596 edition of J. Vujeko’s postil, from which M. Daukša made his translation. Although no such edition appeared, the work invested was not in vain. With J. Vujeko’s texts at hand, Č. Kudzinovskis was able to compile not an ordinary index to Daukša’s postil, but an index-dictionary (giving the meanings of the words). This greatly enhanced the value of the publication. The compiler accomplished a colossal task: he carefully recorded all the words used in Daukša’s postil; by comparing them with J. Vujeko’s original, he established their meanings; and he provided all the forms in which each word occurs. This is Č. Kudzinovskis’s life’s work, a kind of linguistic encyclopedia of Daukša’s postil, which will become an indispensable reference book for every Balticist. This work will be useful not only to researchers of vocabulary, but also to other specialists. It will be of great use in studies of morphology (all word forms have been recorded!), investigations of historical phonetics (cf. the significant data from Daukša on *a over the surface vowel and the word tirtis: kopėčia <1, kapica, mandotas <1. mandat; vowel changes in the words cimentorius ‘1. cmyntarz’, elemožina ‘1. jałmużna’), historical dialectology (cf. lytelius ‘Lithuanian’, pabanga ‘end’) and, more generally, the history of the Lithuanian language (cf. the words pekus, penukšlas, velinas, siela ‘conscience’, sokoras ‘sugar’, etc.). Č. Kudzinovskis’s work reveals the extraordinary richness of Daukša’s postil’s vocabulary: the index-dictionary is nearly twice as many pages long as Daukša’s postil itself. Although Daukša, like many other translators of his time, adhered to the principle of literal translation, he nevertheless consciously sought to vary the language of his translation and make it richer in vocabulary. There were good reasons for this. Seeking to accommodate clergy of the time who knew Lithuanian poorly or not at all, he made extensive use of lexical parallelisms, pairing a borrowed word with a Lithuanian one. Many parallelisms arose from Daukša’s desire to appeal to speakers of different dialects and to be understood correctly by them. It should be stressed, however, that only some of the so-called parallelisms consist of words with entirely identical meanings and no stylistic nuances or differences in meaning. For example, alongside pairs such as žvevys || žuk-lijas, išgydyti || išvaistyti, we also find many such as šapelis || šiaudelis, arklys || žirgas || kuinas, and so on. Often, Daukša gives several Lithuanian equivalents, with different stylistic nuances, for a single word in the original. For instance, a poor man is called bėdulis, benamis, nuvargusis, pavargėlis, pavargulis, pavargusis, rudulis, or vargeta. Thus, Daukša was not content with the colorless, overly general words of the original, but sought more precise Lithuanian equivalents that better expressed the matter at hand. Unfortunately, the compiler of the index-dictionary did not understand or properly appreciate Daukša’s efforts. This is evident, for instance, from the statement in the introduction that Daukša often used synonyms “bez widocznej potrzeby”. The Polish equivalents from Vujek given in the index-dictionary in place of explanations of word meanings, of course, cannot convey all those nuances of meaning, and often do not convey the meaning at all. 1 Biblia litewska Chylińskiego. Nowy testament. Tom III — indeks. Wydał Czesław Kudzinowski. Poznań, 1964, VIII+169 p. 2 See V. Žulys’s review: Baltistica, vol. I (1), pp. 88–91. 189 They are not equivalent to Daukša’s words, since they differ from them both in form (e.g., tulkas – wielu) and in meaning (e.g., šionai – dziś). Despite this, the provision of equivalents from the Polish original should be regarded very positively: in this way, Č. Kudzinovskis rendered a great service to researchers, since the original is practically inaccessible to many. Several decades ago, linguistic literature began to question whether Daukša translated the entire postil by himself3. The basis for such doubts was provided by the presence of forms and words from different dialects, and their inconsistent accentuation. Č. Kudzinovskis is also inclined to support this view, adducing further arguments: 1) only from p. 512 is the vowel e rendered with the letters ia; 2) nes is used only on pp. 175–254, whereas nesa occurs on pp. 199–252; 3) ė is found only at the beginning of the book, and sporadically from p. 495 onward; 4) v occurs only at the beginnings of sections; 5) Wieszpats occurs only up to p. 69, and thereafter Wieszpatis. However, these arguments, like similar ones advanced earlier, are unconvincing. Differences of this kind in language can occur even in the work of a single person. Variation in spelling and alternation between individual features are characteristic of other books of that period as well, including books certainly prepared by a single person. On the title page of the postil, Daukša is named as the translator. In both prefaces (Latin and Polish), he calls the translation his own work. No other translators or assistants are mentioned anywhere, and it is unlikely that there could have been any at that time. In many cases, the linguistic inconsistencies and contradictions can be explained by Daukša’s desire to appeal to a broader readership—both Aukštaitians and Samogitians4. Č. Kudzinovskis has given careful thought to the very principles for compiling the index-dictionary. The compiler endeavoured to arrange the work so that readers could use it more conveniently. Its structure is simple: beneath each headword, printed in capital letters, its meaning is given without any punctuation mark—more precisely, its Polish equivalent in J. Wujek; then, also without punctuation, Daukša’s attested forms of that word are listed in a particular order, together with the numerals indicating their references. Everything is obvious and clear. The compiler did not clutter the text with abbreviations, commas, and other marks, as normative requirements might prescribe. In a publication of this kind, all that would in fact be unnecessary, would make it harder to use, and would considerably increase the book’s length. The compiler presents headwords cautiously, even excessively so. If Daukša used only plural forms of a word, the plural nominative is generally (though not always) given, e.g., bromos, ponios. If only feminine examples occur, the feminine nominative is often given, e.g., burnotina, darbinga, prieteliškos. Sometimes the feminine form is listed as a separate entry; sometimes both forms are included in a single entry, e.g., bursinykė alongside bursinykas, but draugėtarnis, -ė (= draugi atarnis, -ė). Even a Lithuanian genitive is made a headword instead of the Polish adjective (e.g., gyvatės ‘wężowski’, užmarių ‘zamorski’); likewise, an adjectival definite form is sometimes used as the headword when the corresponding indefinite form does not occur (e.g., rodnasis). Reflexive verb forms are also listed separately, e.g., draskytis alongside draskyti, drūtintis alongside drūtinti, gadintis alongside gadinti. It seems that the compiler has overdone it in all these cases. It would have been sufficient to distinguish the forms indicated only within the group of grammatical forms. As in the index to S. Chilinskis’s “New Testament,” the compiler artificially brought the headwords closer to contemporary standard language. In doing so, he disregarded not only the phonetic but also the morphological features of Daukša’s language. For instance, he replaced the prefix ata- with the modern ati-; thus, instead of Daukša’s ataduoti, atadengti, he listed atiduoti, atidengti as headwords. Instead of the prepositional variants ing, in, he listed the modern į (although 3 Žr. Būga K. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1961, t. III, p. 331; Gerullis J. Senieji lietuvių skaitymai. K., 1927, p. 124; Gerullis G. Baltica. – AfSlPh, t. XXXIX, p. 52; Tangl E. Der Accusativus und Nominativus cum Participio im Altlitauischen. Weimar, 1928, p. 21 tt. 4 See also Skardžius P. Daukša, the first creator of the standard language in Greater Lithuania. – APh, vol. IV, pp. 7–19; Lebedys J. Mikalojus Daukša. V., 1963, p. 231 ff. 190 Daukša did not use this form at all), instead of second remains, third remains, and so on—twelfth, thirteenth; instead of six tens, three tens, and so on—sixty (sic!), thirty. The compiler often disregarded Daukša’s connecting vowel in compound words (e.g., he listed vienširdžiai instead of vienaširdžiai), the position of the reflexive particle in prefixed verbs (e.g., susizadėti, prisivakaravus instead of sužadėtis, privakaravusi), and older, fuller forms (e.g., instead of velinas, visokias, we find velnias, visoks); the word’s belonging to a different paradigm (e.g., Daukša’s amžias has been replaced by the modern amžius). Here are some further and more varied examples of substitutions (the first member of each pair is a form from Daukša’s language, the second is the index headword): vienarkas→vieneriokas (sic!), žvaizdė→žvaigždė, (ne)seniai→(ne)senai, gandžiaus→gandžia, istorija→istorija, byskupas→vyskupas, biedna→bėdna, lilija→lelija, pardostė→pardoustė, pemukšlas→peniukšlas. Compare proper names (listed at the end of the volume): Grekai→Graikai, Krokavas→Krokuva, Poznania→Poznanė. However, this practice is not applied consistently throughout. For instance, instead of the standard-language suffix -ininkas, he generally retained Daukša’s -inyką (and rightly so), yet we also find ūkininkavimas, vietininkavimas (with -inink-; Daukša has only -ink-). Alongside velnias he listed velinuvą; alongside kaznadėja (instead of Daukša’s -ieja), kozmadzieją (as in Daukša); alongside pražiošti (instead of -žosti), žosmė (as in Daukša). Compare also Macedonai ‘Macedonians’, Rymas ‘Rome’, alongside Graikija (Daukša has only Grecija). Daukša did not use any of the substitutes listed here. They are forms foreign to his language. This way of presenting forms in the index is convenient for linguists who are unfamiliar with Daukša’s language or who are looking for a particular word (lexicographers, lexicologists), but it is unsuitable for researchers of Daukša’s language, since it excessively levels its distinctive features. These are presented only within the entries. The compiler further greatly simplified the diversity of Daukša’s language by selecting just one of several existing neighboring variants as the headword, usually the one closer to the standard-language norm. For example, from the doublet arba || alba he listed only arba; from bet || beti || bat, only bet; from persona || persuna (persūna?), only persona; from šėtonas || šatonas || satonas, only šėtonas; from žmogus || žmuo, only žmogus. He conflated visagalis and visagalis in a single entry (under visagalis). Longer variants are not distinguished from shorter ones, e.g. (the headword selected is given in parentheses): iki || ik (iki), jis || jisai (jis), jogi || jog (jog), mažai || maža || mažu || maž (mažai), neg || negu (neg), nes || nesa (nes), net || nete (net), nug || nugi (nug), pagal || pagalai (pagal), pats || patis || patsai || patsai (pats), pent || pen (pent), tada || tad (tada), tarp || tarpu (tarp), tas || tasai || tasiau (tas), vienaip || vienaipo (vienaip), viešpats || viešpatis (viešpats). Longer variants with the particle g(i) are generally not given separate entries, e.g., drinag (only drin is listed), jukai (juk), kanag (kana), kodrinag (kodrin), norintig (norint), nuog, nug, nog (nuo), prieg (and pri, listed under the variant prie, which Daukša does not use at all), teipag, teipagu, teipajag, teipjau, teipaug, teipog, teipogu, etc. (all listed under taip, which is foreign to Daukša). But jeig, kadaig, kaipog are given separate entries alongside jei, kada, kaip. Compare also the conflation of variants of proper names (usually the one more reminiscent of the Polish equivalent is selected; it is given in parentheses): Abrahamas || Abromas (Abrahamas), Barnaba || Barnabas (Barnaba), Christus || Kristus (Christus), Eva || Jeva (Eva), Izidorius || Isodoras (Izidorius—foreign to Daukša), Jobas || Jonas (Jobas), Jokūbas || Jakoboas (Jokūbas), Judošius || Judas (Judošius), Saulas || Saulius (Saulas), even Vengrai || Ungarai (Vengrai)! It is understandable that in some cases it would have been difficult for the compiler to determine the basic form of a word used by Daukša—for example, to reconstruct the nominative of the name for China (Sina, Sinos?) from loc. pl. Synos 91₃₀. But a question mark could have been added to such reconstructions. References to modern forms could have been added for forms that differ greatly from those used today. References could also have been used to highlight neighboring variants. It should be said that the compiler avoids references altogether; they are 191 quite rare. More extensive use of references could have met the needs not only of lexicographers but also of researchers of Daukša’s language. A broader and more detailed account of the structure of the index-dictionary would be very useful, making the volume easier for readers to use. At the very least, the main principles governing the compilation of the index-dictionary should have been explained. Perhaps this would have dispelled at least some of the criticisms made here. A few more observations on the treatment of individual forms in Daukša’s language. As headwords, the compiler gives, for example, dangujejis, dienojejis, žemėjejis, pragarejis, viduryejis⁵, viršujejis, etc. They should be written dangujejis, dienojejis, žemėjejis, pragarejis, viduryejis, viršujejis… This is indicated both by the origin of the forms (compare the Lithuanian Samogitian form of similar formation, loc. sg. m. baltamėjė ‘in the white one’) and by Daukša’s spelling. The suffixes -ymas and -imas were not always successfully distinguished; compare išdraskimas alongside papiktymas, sumišymas. Instead of išlepęs, juodkunigai, pasimėgti, paspalytas, prisiegti, treškšti, žėkas, žiegorius, Laurinas, Mednikai, Pilipas, Salamonas, the forms should be išlepęs (compare Daukša’s dialectal spelling in the gen. sg. išzlāpusio 167₁₈), juodaknygiai (!), pasimėgti, paspalitas, prisiekti, treškšti, žėkas, žiegorius, Laurynas, Mednykai, Pilypas, Saliamonas. There are also a few typographical errors, e.g., instead of the headwords apsipausyti, binges, įsakymas, išsiūsti, kalinėjs, parsiūsti, pebausti, pelėda, prizopostyjimas, susesti, sutaryti, sužėlesi, takotojas, sirijiškas, the forms should be apsipjaustyti (apsipjaustyti), binges, įsakymas, išsiūsti, kalinėjs, parsiūsti, perbausti, pelėda, prizopostyjimas, susėsti, sutaryti, sužėlusi, tykotojas, sirijiškas. In works of this kind, it is practically very difficult to avoid certain shortcomings and inaccuracies. But these do not determine the value of the volume. Most importantly, thanks to Č. Kudzinovskis, researchers will now have all the words of Daukša’s Postil registered, together with all their forms, and researchers will no longer need to search the entire Postil for a particular word or one of its forms. Č. Kudzinovskis has completed truly substantial and much-needed work. We should all be grateful to him for it. This is an impressive volume, an example to us all, encouraging work on compiling index-dictionaries of other monuments of the Lithuanian language. Zigmas Zinkevičius 5 Alongside f. naktijeja (with -ij-), Daukša’s dialect may also have had -ij-, rather than -yj-; compare dial. loc. sg. naktį ‘in the night’. However, the compiler should have used forms of the same type. 192